gaining the grail external research funding

Karen Mow - University of CanberraKaren Mow - University of Canberra

Gaining the GrailGaining the Grail

External Research External Research FundingFunding

Comunicación y Gerencia

Karen Mow Research Development Karen Mow Research Development AdvisorAdvisor

University of CanberraUniversity of Canberra


It is a It is a journey journey - much - much more more than than grant grant writingwriting


Track RecordTrack Record

International refereed journal articles***

Major grants from respectable agencies***

Collaborations with prominent people***

Consistent output**

Memberships, awards*

Invitations to speak/consult*

Acknowledgement: W Sawyer, BLIS Research Planning Workshop 2006


PublishPublish

Build track record

High Quality refereed international journals and other national journals – check leaders’ outputs)

Publish strategically – on several streams or topic areas with others, think ahead

Obtain small research grants - from university and other sources

1-5 years out


ProfileProfile - - wwho knows you?ho knows you?

Locate leaders in your discipline. Talk to them. Help them*. Spin your work in their direction. Publish with them.

Go to high level conferences – present papers, mingle, talk to others. What is the buzz?

Monitor ARC / NHMRC Panel membership (you should know many of them) and be strategic about networks

Every year

Begin


CollaborateCollaborateBuild a network of collaborators - other

researchers with similar interests and good profilesrun academic conferences with potential industry partners

Relationships – must work for joint research to be effective. Avoid really difficult people

Remote collaborations need regular communications and in face meetings

Skills should overlap – complementary skills energy and flair. Need to meet regularly, clear tasks and timelines for each member of the team.

1-3 years out


QualityQuality

Team Quality, a euphemism for performer track record, is the dominant factor in determining reviewer overall quality score for existing and proposed research.


PartnersPartners

Develop agendas for research needs with relevant industry partners and researchers – issues raised at industry conferences which have most interest and support.

Look for - authority, knowledge, skills and the money

1-2 years out


Funding sourcesFunding sources

Identify the best funding source and know the detail - rules and decision makers

eg ARC Linkage Project funding, must have partner $, time and real commitment to win a grant as well as track record and national need.

Databases for funding opportunities –InfoEd, Research Research, GrantSearch,

1-2 years out


Project BuildingProject Building

Good question Build a team with right skillsSequence of tasksCommunicationConfidenceFocusPassion

OnGoing


Team and QuestionTeam and Question

Form the team for the task – get commitmentQuality partners in high ranking universities, peak body industry players. Think laterally. Be sure you can work together. Big teams can be hard to manage.

Clarify the research question – and

your approach to investigating it. Do not leave this until you are writing the grant application.

6-12 months out


Research Council FundingResearch Council Funding

The Text Draft over time and have others edit it.

Start 6 months out and rework it as the research focus is clarified.

Get partner input.

Check for clarity of answers to each of the parts and against selection criteria

Partner Information

Provide all partners with complete list of all that will be required from them to complete the application. If ARC, get GAMS accounts for all parties.

6monthsout

3-4 months out


Bend your workBend your work

Bend your work to develop the proposal

National research priorities – find one, fit this research to it (broadly)

Other priorities – rural and regional, IT, international links, collaboration

Get the cash – ASK for more than you need from your partners . Aim to double the bottom line requirement. Do not pussy foot around the vulgarity but tell the partners why you must have their money and in-kind support.


Now it’s about writingNow it’s about writing

Refine text for “excitement” – it’s a judgement maker – the WOW factor

Imagine reading 150 applications…


DetailDetail

Get the information enter it into GAMS (or pay someone to do it for 3 weeks of assembly).

Nail the detail – great applications fail because of this

Double check references to the same thing eg budget pages & text descriptions


Peer ReviewPeer Review Funding program differences

ARC DP uses these components:

• Executive Director• Expert Advisory Committee • Oz reader• Int assessor• Quality panel (with non-experts)


ARC DP Process


NHMRC Project Grants ProcessNHMRC Project Grants Process


Inside a selection panelInside a selection panelPolitics inside the panels –

sharing, equality, distribution, excellence?

Eating the youngWeight for ageEpistemological differences

and understanding qualityWorkload and time constraintsNegotiated settlement


Highly ranked applications Highly ranked applications

Are deliberately written to score top marks against the selection criteria

Convey and reflect clear and important research plans

Show commitment and collaboration

Use language that presents ‘technical’ matters in a balanced and accessible way

Easy to read and comprehend by a non-expert


Highly ranked applicationsHighly ranked applications

Clearly present aims and significance up front (especially sections: Summary, National Benefit and p.1 of E)

Demonstrate how the project is situated in the context not only of ‘academe’ but also of industry knowledge and practice and how the joint university-industry study proposed will progress or challenge this

Appreciate that first impressions count eg, the title, the 100 word summary, the snapshot of investigators, the opening few paragraphs of the Additional Text, care in presentation, etc


Highly ranked applicationsHighly ranked applications

Clearly convey how the project:Addresses a clear and important problem

Is significant and innovative

Is part of a long-term research program and agenda for the academics involved AND the industry partners

Builds on previous work by the researchers (pilot studies, earlier publications, data already gathered) and/or industry (ideally through some collaboration to date)


Uncompetitive applications Uncompetitive applications

Fail to “grab” the reader’s attention (esp. in the 100 word summary and

opening paras of the Additional Text)

Are written in such a way that only the most expert reader could reasonably understand the project or the investigator(s) track record

Read more like a piece of contracted work or consultancy than genuine research that is innovative and challenging.


Uncompetitive applicationsUncompetitive applications

Seem largely university/academic-led, and in style and substance do not seem to be genuinely collaborative

Do not clearly present the key questions, hypotheses, controversies, puzzles and how these will be addressed

Leave the reader feeling there is little evidence that the applicants know what it is like/what it takes to undertake (and successfully) complete a project with industry?’


Uncompetitive applicationsUncompetitive applications

Do not make strategic use of Part B and fail to convey each applicant’s track record relative to opportunity, and especially their capacity to ‘deliver’ on this LP project

Do not convince that this study needs to be funded now, in the (Australian) National Interest

Look like they have been rushed


An application for funding isAn application for funding is

one means of persuading other people

to give you resources

to support interesting,

important work that

you really want to do,

that you can do,

and

in which they have an interest

gaining the grail external research funding

Documents